[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 33 (Tuesday, March 22, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 22, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
       MAKE SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT MORE FLEXIBLE AND LESS COSTLY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Nebraska, [Mr. Bereuter] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, this Member comes to the floor to speak 
about the urgent need to make the Safe Drinking Water Act's regulations 
more flexible and less costly.
  Madam Speaker, there is general agreement that the current Federal 
safe drinking water law is badly broken and needs to be fixed. While 
the distinguished gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Slattery] and the 
distinguished gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] have correctly 
diagnosed the current law's shortcomings and proposed a workable 
solution, H.R. 3392, there are others who have ignored the current 
law's detrimental effects on small cities and rural communities, and, 
in fact, they are attempting to make it even more unnecessarily 
stringent and costly. Why is this legislation not moving in committee?
  It is troubling to hear people argue against the Slattery-Bliley bill 
by claiming it will weaken the current safety levels for drinking 
water. That is simply not true. This Member certainly would not support 
legislation which would place his constituents at risk. Neither would 
the other 140-plus cosponsors of H.R. 3392; nor would the National 
Governor's Association or the U.S. Conference of Mayors which both 
support H.R. 3392. In fact, numerous responsible groups and 
associations have endorsed the Slattery-Bliley bill because they 
understand that it would allow water systems to provide safe drinking 
water at a reasonable cost. This Member will enter into the Record an 
excellent statement on this issue written by Governor Bob Miller of 
Nevada and Governor Fife Symington of Arizona on behalf of the National 
Governor's Association. The letter appeared in the Washington Post on 
February 3, 1994.
  Madam Speaker, as the letter indicates, H.R. 3392 helps correct some 
of the serious problems and reduces the substantial local costs created 
by the current law. Clearly, many of the current SDWA requirements 
result in prohibitive costs without any real health benefit or increase 
in water quality. This is an issue on which this Member has been 
speaking out and seeking corrective actions by the EPA for some time, 
but without results. However, in large part, it is Congress which is to 
blame for the statutory direction we have given to the EPA.
  H.R. 3392 injects more reasonableness and common sense on this issue 
and allows states and communities to identify and focus on those 
contaminants which present an actual health risk in a particular area. 
Legislation enacted by Congress simply must take into account the 
economic and budgetary realities faced by States and communities. 
Blanket Federal legislation for this still very diverse nation is 
usually ineffective, overreaching, inflexible, and expensive for States 
and communities of all sizes. That surely is the case with various 
parts of the current Safe Drinking Water law.
  As the recent defeat of the rule for consideration of the EPA 
Cabinet-level bill demonstrated, most Members and the informed American 
public now support an assessment of risks during the regulatory 
process. Clearly, some applications of environmental regulation how 
entered a phase of diminishing returns. Although great progress has 
been made in meeting threats to health and safety, a point has been 
reached where each new environmental regulation should undergo a cost/
benefit estimate based on an analysis of risk.
  Madam Speaker, it is indeed troubling to hear of the scare tactics 
used by the extremists on this issue. They seek to frighten the public 
into thinking that unless a massive, bureaucratic, inside-the-beltway 
approach is taken to regulate drinking water, no one will be safe. 
Amazingly, opponents of H.R. 3392 seek to deny State and local 
officials the ability to tailor a safe drinking water program based on 
sound science. However, no one has a more powerful incentive to provide 
safe drinking water than state and local officials, because they and 
their constituents will be drinking that water and they know full well 
where the buck stops. They certainly would not subject themselves and 
their family and friends to harmful water. Instead, they would focus 
their time and money on the problems unique to their community.

  Madam Speaker, there is a growing financial crisis for small 
communities that becomes more evident each year as new testing and 
treatment deadlines are imposed. Many Federal officials are now 
recognizing the dangers of an inflexible Federal approach to this 
problem. In fact, during a speech at the annual conference for the 
National Association of Towns and Townships last September, EPA 
Administrator Carol Browner stated her support for more flexibility, 
more local and regional decisionmaking.
  This Member's experience in visiting with local officials and 
listening to constituents at townhall meetings indicates that the 
regulations promulgated to enforce the Safe Drinking Water Act have 
become a major Federal irritant to local government officials and 
terribly expensive--for no additional benefits worth there costs. In 
fact, these regulations often result in diverting scarce local dollars 
to address problems or contaminants which do not exist. One of the most 
flagrant examples of a requirement which results in higher costs 
involves testing across the whole Nation for a pesticide used on 
Hawaiian pineapple fields even though it is currently banned in the 
continental United States.

  It costs nearly as much for a very small community to go through the 
mandated testing procedures as it does for a large community. In most 
cases, therefore, residents in smaller communities will be forced to 
pay much more per person, since the costs cannot be spread out over a 
larger population. Without changes in the current law, though, 
communities of all sizes will be severely impacted.
  This Member would like to cite several examples of the problems 
facing communities in Nebraska's First District.
  Wahoo (population 3,681) recently instituted a 10 percent rate 
increase due to increased testing costs. The community is expecting an 
annual increase in excess of $20,000 to pay for water testing 
requirements.
  Homer (population 553) estimates that monthly water rates may nearly 
triple over the next several years as a result of the testing 
requirements. Just recently, water rates for customers were about $9 
per month. Within a few years, this may jump to $25 per month.
  Unadilla (population 294) is projecting that, by 1997 each of its 120 
households will have to pay an incredible $100 per year just for water 
testing costs.
  Even a city the size of Lincoln (population 191,972) will face 
problems. The city is estimating that over the next six years, total 
costs for capital improvements and operation and maintenance due to 
proposed regulations for water quality may be as high as $185 million.
  Communities throughout Nebraska and the United States are confronting 
similar predicaments. In addition to the costs of outrageously 
overreaching testing requirements, it is clear that the cost of water 
will skyrocket if truly unnecessary treatment is required. While the 
EPA sets its standards as close to zero risk as technologically 
possible, incredibly it takes costs into consideration only for water 
systems serving more than one million people. Again, in fact this 
required treatment will often result in no actual health benefit.

  The Slattery-Bliley bill recognizes that, consistent with sound 
health considerations, required technology should be based on the size 
of the community. The legislation reforms the current standard setting 
procedures by requiring the Environmental Protection Agency EPA to 
establish ``best available technology'' for water systems based on 
their size.
  Madam Speaker, the bill also removes many of the rigid and arbitrary 
requirements of the current safe drinking water law. For instance, it 
eliminates the notorious and ridiculous current statutory mandate that 
EPA identify 25 contaminants every 3 years for regulation and replaces 
it with a system based on contaminants that, first, represent a public 
health concern and, second, actually occur in drinking water. The 
legislation also allows States to tailor monitoring requirements to 
particular circumstances, with responsible flexibility and reasonable 
waivers made more easily available.
  Madam Speaker, while everyone certainly recognizes the importance of 
providing safe drinking water for everyone, this Member believes it 
should be done in a realistic manner which does not inappropriately 
burden the communities affected. As stated previously, this Member does 
not support taking any action that will cause drinking water to become 
unsafe. For instance, where there is a problem with biological 
contamination, typically coliform, yes, treatment is obviously 
necessary. However, the Federal Government should provide more 
discretion to States so that they can use common sense and not be 
subject to arbitrary nationwide standards that have no relevance in a 
particular State. For instance, the nature of water testing in Nebraska 
should reflect the State's uniquely strong groundwater dependency. This 
Member has consistently conveyed these views to current and former EPA 
Administrations and will continue to support legislation, such as H.R. 
3392, which would relieve the burdens on communities throughout 
Nebraska and the Nation. Sometimes, however, regardless of the 
administration or political party involved, one wonders if anyone in 
EPA really listens or cares what the impact of regulation really is on 
America's communities and their citizens.
  Madam Speaker, in conclusion this Member urges his colleagues to 
support H.R. 3392, the responsible approach to providing safe drinking 
water in America. Cosponsor the legislation. It will protect the health 
of individuals as well as communities.

                [From the Washington Post, Feb. 3, 1994]

               Drinking Water Safety: Let's Be Scientific

       The recent drinking water emergency in Washington 
     illustrated the need to reform the federal program that 
     governs drinking water safety. On that, Rep. Henry Waxman and 
     the nation's governors agree [``The Next Water Crisis,'' op-
     ed, Jan 19]. But the governors believe drinking water 
     standards should be based on sound science and implemented in 
     a streamlined manner.
       The emergency in Washington occurred at a water treatment 
     plant operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, with 
     oversight from the Environmental Protection Agency. The 
     locally operated water systems in the area continued to meet 
     federal standards under the same circumstances.
       Both the Washington and Milwaukee water emergencies point 
     to the fundamental problem in the regulatory system: Congress 
     requires federal, state and local governments to spend 
     billions to monitor specific contaminants that may not even 
     occur in drinking water, rather than focusing on actual 
     health risk and seeking the best regulatory ``buy.''
       Amazingly, the Environmental Protection Agency is not 
     required to regulate many contaminants that actually occur in 
     our water and threaten our citizens; however, EPA is required 
     to regulate 83 other specific chemical contaminants that 
     Congress wrote into the law in 1986, which may or may not 
     actually occur in our water. There is no federal standard for 
     cryptosporidium, the disease organism that killed 40 people 
     in Milwaukee and drove 1 million Washington area residents to 
     drink only boiled or bottled water for four days.
       Far too much of the public's time and money is wasted on 
     activities with little or no value. For example, communities 
     across this nation are required to continually test their 
     water for substances that do not occur in it.
       A bill introduced in the House by Rep. Jim Slattery 
     (D.Kan.) and Tom Bliley (R-VA.) directs EPA to regulate 
     substances that actually occur in our water and are of public 
     health concern. It also allows states and local governments 
     to focus on those same contaminants, and it authorizes the 
     EPA administrator to consider the public health benefits of 
     regulatory alternatives in setting drinking water standards.
       Passage of this bill would enable EPA to weigh the health 
     benefits of several alternatives and set a water standard at 
     a level that represents the best ``regulatory buy,'' provided 
     that public health is protected. At present, EPA cannot 
     choose between alternatives that provide comparable health 
     benefits but differ significantly in cost. Such changes in 
     the law would significantly strengthen the effectiveness of 
     the Safe Drinking Water Act.
       ``The governors also support President Clinton's 
     recommendation to authorize a low-interest loan program, 
     financed in part by the federal government and administered 
     by states, to help our communities build better and safer 
     drinking water systems.
       If Congress responds with business as usual, overwhelming 
     state authority with an inflexible federal structure and 
     limited local flexibility, we will simply continue to pour 
     the public's money down the drain.

                          ____________________